No.397016
You made a mistake. Some anons are not qualified to answer question so you can respond to me, since I am qualified. Anyways the mistake you made is turning the Soviet Union into an absolute abstract idea, essentially remove the context behind the nation and it’s collapse. The absolute idea of the nation of the Soviet Union did not exist in a vacuum but in a world with many competing ideas. So if we use the Hegelian Idea, you could say that the Soviets were not up to the task but we cannot just be Hegelians here, we have to be materialists and there was material reasons for its collapse within the context of a global Cold War, of competing ideas and economy, with one definitely trying to undermine the other.
Now you can call the ridiculous amount spent by the west to undermine the east as rational only in hindsight but such a cost was the result of what you have now, a global neoliberal hellhole returning to the principles that existed before the Soviets and before the Great Depression. The consequences of such has created the chaos we see today. But I’m a materialist and my view will have a materialist bias. I do not think that the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to a more rational world, but instead to a more chaotic one, with an ideology that had no other to compete and was forced to confront itself in its own contradictions and so now illiberalism is the only competing ideology to global liberalism. It seems to me that liberalism needs an enemy to justify its existence, and is it not irrational for liberalism to see any form of illiberalism as an enemy of it?